Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis St. Lewis


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Delete. I extended the debate for a second time to allow time for editors requested to look at this from WP:WPVA. This has happened and they have endorsed the deletion, as failing wikipedia's requirements regarding a combination of WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Please note this is not a vote, but a debate related to policy interpreted by informed consensus. Editors whose only or main contributions to the encylopedia are to this debate or the article concerned carry very little weight compared with established editors. See also WP:OSE.  Ty  07:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Louis St. Lewis

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable artist. Google search returns only local mentions, no national coverage or other reason for WP:N. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do not delete this entry: Artist is represented in multiple museum collections, and has been reviewed numerous times by national and international publications over the last 20 years. His collaboration with Sean Yseult of White Zombie and his activities as a openly gay artist in the South ad to his distinction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.167.242.120 (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would consider professional artists with more than three museum collections worthy of note, and this artist has more than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 365art (talk • contribs) 13:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that Wikipedia does not have listings on very notable museums such as the New Orleans Museum of Art ( which happens to have the largest collection of Faberge in America), the Morris Museum, The Masur museum etc. seems to run contrary to being an informative encyclopedia. While I can certainly understand your needing entries on Paris Hilton, I would certainly hope that in the end, your purpose would be to include a myriad of institutions and people of note and merit....such as Louis St.Lewis.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 365art (talk • contribs) 20:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RMHED (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable artist, no reliable sources. Above user (s?) seem to be the author or involved with the page. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, if there really were numerous reviews of St Lewis' work, the article should easily be sourced. Sadly, it isn't, thus failing WP:BIO. Huon (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * '"Keep'",  google search clearly shows articles and reviews throughout the country for this artist as well as museum references on askart.com   The artist has many google hits as well being an arts writer. Just how many museums are needed for an artist to be worthy of wikipedia..3--5 - 50?  It's ludicrous to think that a well known and well collected artist is being considered for deletion because of the lack of arts knowledge by some on this site.  What is Ironic is the fact that there are pages upon pages for murder victims from obscure crimes here on wiki, yet this artist's importance is up for debate.  If wiki cares to be considered having any integrity whatsoever, they truly need to rethink their mission.  I personally think that what this entry needs is someone capable of editing, placing references, and registered facts about this artist, as opposed to just deleting the entire entry. What is especially striking to me is that many of the editors requesting deletion for this entry have as their own entries a series of shopping malls and other obviously " notable" organizations.  If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.201.238 (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia deals with what is, not what ought to be. LSL is not notable; the claim that there are other non-notable articles in the encyclopedia does not change this. DeGawl (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ""Keep"' updated references and links have been added to this listing, which more than adequately supports the artist's notability.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 365art (talk • contribs) 19:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep Delete (see below) for now. There should be more links to on-line refs, as most are recent, but Florence Biennale and other claims suggest notability. Most coverage is in the US South, but not everyone has to live in New York. This article should have been added to the WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts from the start - nominator please do this. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.   SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Ty  08:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete due to the lack of accessible and reliable sources required to show verifiability. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment . Didn't see that source in the article so it might be a new one. Very borderline. Neutral for me. Brilliantine (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I'm in agreement with Johnbod. While being a "featured artist" at the Toronto International Art Fair means little (trust me), appearing at the Florence Biennale is significant. Coverage in Artpapers is also useful. There seems to be enough coverage to establish some notability. There are problems with the article: no inline citations for some of the claims (i.e. Warhol's comment) and way too much name-dropping for my liking. But this can be fixed. I suggest erring on "keep" for this one.  freshacconci  talk talk  14:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete On reflection, I'm now leaning towards delete per CactusWriter and Huon. There are too many unanswered questions and unsourced claims. That much of this may be a self-promotional stunt is troubling. Unless these issues are addressed and corrected, I say delete.  freshacconci  talk talk  21:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or gut it. The problem with the article is Verifiability. It includes large amounts of un-sourced material -- no in-line citations -- and much of it of dubious nature. The entire early life portion appears to be an exaggeration, if not a parody, and is unsupported by any evidence. The person's own account only states that, as a teenager, he was in high school (not a child genius at the university) and he was expelled from the North Carolina School of Arts. The AP article states this person is a self-promoter and he admits making up stories about himself. (for example: on his website here] he implies that he was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford from 1980 to 1981 - check the bottom of the page.) What can be sourced is that he has written an art column for a monthly city magazine for four years, his artwork is exhibited for sale at several North Carolina galleries and he is known in North Carolina as a pop artist. (The Ogden Museum does not presently list him among the artists in their collection. And commercial galleries which are trying to sell artwork and post bios based on unchecked information from the artist do no qualify as independent sources.) Unfortunately, this article might pass notability criteria, however without any veriable information it is difficult to judge. The article will need to be deleted or, at the very least, gutted. — Cactus Writer |   needles  14:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment After the unsigned IP address posted their response below, I noticed that the subject had altered his web page from to, removing the Rhodes Scholar bs that I mentioned above. This continuing pattern of deception is problematic. —  Cactus Writer |   needles  20:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

'''Keep' I find the problem with this entry to be the fact that several of the statements deal with publications that predate google or being able to be easily referenced. The artist does indeed seem to be represented by galleries in California ( under the name Louis St.Louis) as well as New Orleans and the Carolina's and to possess a extensive exhibition record and notable critical references such as ArtForum and ArtPapers. With half of his career in the 80's and early 90's it comes as no surprise that the facts are hard to pin down. The reference to the Ogden Museum not having the artist listed on it's website should not neccissarily negate his being in the collection, and it seems that this article is at the least in need of paring down and cleaning up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.201.238 (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Second vote. Johnbod (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I find the lack of results whenever one tries to find confirmation for something mentioned in the article extremely troubling. The Ogden Museum has an "art search" option that, according to their website, searches all their collections, but it doesn't find anything on Louis St. Lewis. Or take the "51st. annual DAG juried art contest" where he's supposed to have been ranked first. The only relevant Google hit for the search terms "DAG", "art contest" and "St Lewis" is - his Wikipedia article. I wasn't even able to find out whether there is a "DAG juried art contest", an odd lack of information for an event supposed to be held for more than half a century. For the Florence Biennale I'd like to see a reliable secondary source before I beleive it. Their online list of artists goes back to 1997, and St Lewis is not on that list. Huon (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You do get that his work was auctioned by the Ogden at a fundraiser (home page search), but that is not much help re notability. What is the link to the Florence list? Johnbod (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's this . Appallingly designed and I'm not sure what it's authority is, but probably legit. No sign of the artist.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ''Comment"' -What"s is most appalling is the fact that if a fact can't be found in 30 seconds via google then it doesn't exist. This artist has been recognized since the mid 80's  and documented by reliable sources since then. BUT because they can't be referenced in 2 seconds via google, the rats come out in droves.   aaaaawhat is Wiki's viewpoint on references that have been removed from websites after a few years?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 365art (talk • contribs) 22:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In which year did the artist participate in the Florence Biennale?--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Biennale website. I did find that auction at Ogden mentioning St. Lewis, but the article explicitly claims his works are part of their collection. I just mailed the registrar of Ogden; he should know if the Art Search is correct or if they do have some work of St. Lewis. Huon (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find those pages before - he's not there under LE LO SA or ST, so changing to delete above; we seem to have a merry prankster on our hands. What a lot of Lopez's though. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, the Ogden registrar replied that their collection records are not complete online; St. Lewis is represented in the Ogden collection by two paintings, Self-Portrait as a Dandy and The Prophecy. Now we'd only need a reliable source, something I found extremely difficult to obtain when St. Lewis is concerned. Huon (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - do people think this, & the other (smaller?) museum collections mentioned in the article are enough for notability? Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking on that, Huon. It provides a confirmation to a point all of us felt could be made -- the subject would probably pass the criteria for notability. However, we are still left with the original problem of WP:SOURCES and verifiability. WP:BLP guidelines are clear that biographies of living persons must err on the side of caution. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. (emphasis is WP's); and ...badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted. (emphasis is mine). The discovery of so much dubious, if not blatantly false, information about St. Lewis is still problematic. So the question remains: What improves WP's standing more -- the inclusion of a North Carolina contemporary artist of minor notability, or the lack of a self-promoter with an apparent desire to create his own mythology? If kept, the article needs to be gutted, and then will need to be carefully watched to prevent further BLP violations. — Cactus Writer |   needles  19:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * comment Additional information and links have been provided to this entry. Anyone who has referenced the askart.com website surely has noticed that they contact the museums before listing them for each artist. It could have saved the time of people contacting the registrar at the Ogden Museum.  As you can see from the added sources, there are many references to St. Lewis' notability over the years, and even an Ebay listing where they are selling a page from ARTFORUM magazine featuring St.Lewis' portrait of Andy Warhol from 1988.  The fact that many of the periodicals listed have not kept articles online for reference certainly doesn't take away from this artists notability.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 365art (talk • contribs) 21:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * comment Ok, now something seems kinda crazy to me.  Some folks here seem to be saying that the artist is running a fast one and doing so without use of verifiable information.  But lets look at facts.  The links show that the artist is indeed in multiple museums ( even though some people might find southern museums objectionable, they are still very much museums).  The entry states that the artist works with Sean Yseult of White Zombie, and has statements by Andre Leon Talley, both of these are documented. The entry shows comments by Warhol about St.Lewis and there is a link to the mint Museum of Art that actually links an article where St. Lewis talks about meeting Warho back in the day....not to mention a link on EBAY where they are selling a page from the International Magazine ARTFORUM  featuring an ad by St.Lewis about Warhol.  Now I don't know if people here are aware or not, but regular local artists don't get full page ads in ARTFORUM, not now and not in the 1980's when each page would have cost $ 5000 +.  I think this is an example of someone caught between print and internet, where  verifying is more difficult than most because of the lack of online information.  I also note that someone mentioned above were the other museums "smaller" museums.  Anyone who has ever dealt  with the New Orleans Museum of Art, knows that it is a major institution that rivals any museum in the country.  St.Lewis' inclusion is worthy and distinct.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.201.238 (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - by now there are lots of external links, but I remain unimpressed. A collection of articles written by St. Lewis, passing mentions, and gallery blurbs. The low points are a forum entry, a Wiki, and Spanish eBay. Those are supposed to be the best secondary sources on a notable artist? I think not. All those "sources" don't even once mention his date of birth, for example. Huon (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete too many problems here, too vague, too ambiguous. Clarify, simplify and come back when you're ready...all this explanation should not be necessary. The article should speak for itself, or don't bother. Modernist (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Modernist expresses my view on this exactly. Also, the IP states that the artist falls between print and the internet. They're referring to the difficulty of finding references, but I think it also applies to the artist's notability: enough for some mentions in the local press, but not enough for the kind of mainstream newspapers and specialist art magazines that have a large presence on the internet. Notability isn't decided by Google, but since a 47 year old artist can't really be described as pre-internet the lack of online sources is a real problem. Especially because we're talking about someone who's claim to notability is slight to begin with. Reluctant delete as having a minor claim to notability per WP:CREATIVE, but one that can't be verified with reliable third-party sources.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep WOW, has anyone really looked at the entries that the people crying delete have as their own entries?  Shopping malls, backwoods Scottish artists with one show, never seen films,  and very recherche biographies.  Give me a break, this artist may be most notably a Southern Art, but the South is Larger than the UK, France, and Germany combined.  All of this smacks of snobbish behavior.  This artist is obviously in several museums, yet for some reason, they aren't the RIGHT museums to please some of the critics.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.201.238 (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia's page on notability for creative individuals clearly states that if an artist is in the collection of several museum then he is indeed notable.  And since some of the people here have been kind enough to contact museum to check on the validity of that claim, that objection is now totally mute, and that is the end of the story. Someone commented that the museums were " smaller" museums, but smaller in whose estimation? an art curator? A critic?  All of the museums that hold work by St.Lewis are respected organizations, and as much as people may object to the artist being of regional importance, the fact remains that he is indeed notable in his field..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 365art (talk • contribs) 19:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.